PROHIBITION IS A FLAWED ANALOGY FOR DRUG WAR

In Friday's "Drug war wastes needed resources" (CT, Feb. 4), the
author equates the current war on drug trafficking to the era of
Prohibition during the early 1900s. The argument entails that with
the repeal of Prohibition, drug syndicate organizations dissolved,
along with the terrible affliction of blindness/health effects caused
by homemade brew.

However, this argument is flawed because it does not take into
account the repercussions of repealing Prohibition. With alcohol use
a socially accepted norm today in the United States, the risk and
probability of driving under the influence has drastically increased.
This fact is especially upheld by the statistic that 41 percent of
traffic fatalities involve alcohol, according to Mothers Against
Drunk Driving. In short, removing Prohibition does not create a
utopia where alcohol use no longer poses a problem, even though it is
government controlled.

However, in support of the author, a more structured argument in
favor of stopping the drug war would rely on the futile attempts to
win an impossible battle. Since the bulk of illicit drugs are
internationally imported, winning this war would require the
cooperation of dozens of other countries, which also assumes they
share similar standards. An example of conflicting standards can be
that in the United States, psilocybin is classified as a Schedule I
controlled substance while in the United Kingdom the magic mushroom
can be bought on the streets without government regulation.

Another approach on the drug war issue would attack the fundamental
policies of government. Why should the government control what
private citizens do in their respective private residences? Of course
there are many approaches to addressing the drug war debate, but
comparing it with the Prohibition period is a poorly structured argument.

Wayne Chiang

Junior, computer science